And with one stroke, Trump killed the Era of Slacktivism No wonder America’s biggest lobbyist, Google, has been so frantic to drive through its agenda this year. Whether it was making an audacious landgrab for the TV industry, locking the Copyright chief out of her office, stopping ISPs from doing what Google does with your personal data, or taking the songs away from America’s …
From what I have read in user comments over the recent years it seems the bulk of what people call net neutrality could be re-worded as "Unlimited netflix streaming".
It also seems as if the people that want this unlimited netflix streaming really don't care how it's done, they just pile on to Net neutrality as if it will save them.
the original intent of 'net neutrality' was "no packet favoritism". However, that fails to make faster pipelines a reality, as they just get clogged with more CRAP, all equally prioritized.
What might work BEST is a 'hybrid system' where the netflix-like providers pay a premium to get a priority code. If only a percentage of traffic is prioritized, let's say no more than 30% when traffic is heavy, then everyone else shares the 70% of the total bandwidth [not a bad deal, really]. The extra revenue from selling the "preferred pipeline" could then go into upgrading the overall pipeline. EVERYBODY wins! But in a communistic "all traffic is the same priority, regardless" system, you get lots of CRAP that nobody pays for. And the infrastructure doesn't improve. EVER.
And like communism and socialism, when everybody is LOWERED DOWN TO THE SAME COMMON DENOMINATOR, then everybody is EQUALLY MEDIOCRE.
Instead of 'net neutrality', the "fair prioritized pipelining" technique would go a LOT farther in delivering content AND not destroying high speed traffic for non-pay-to-play-ers. It's like a private toll road intended for those willing to pay (one where the cost varies depending on how much it's being used, in particular). It ultimately lightens traffic for everyone else, too. You may hate it, but it works.
But yeah, you won't see THAT idea coming from a "slacktivist" any time soon...
/me wonders if I'll set a new personal downvote record with THIS post
Or the extra revenue could just go into someone's pockets.
When cell phones were first common in the UK calls between networks were insanely expensive, which meant you had to be on the same network as your friends, so whichever network got the cool kids first got everyone else in the region it offered service.
It will be the same with your internet. TheReg is included in your basic package but you need the upgrade service if you want decent speed for Netflix. But a different cable company has the deal with Amazon Prime, so if you want fast access to their site you need to pay that provider.
Big sites like Facebook and Youtube will be able to demand the same sort of fees from internet providers that HBO and ESPN can from their cable arm. If you want us not to throttle your customers then you pay, and then you charge the customers not to throttle them again.
Sigh. It's not "technical prioritization" that we care about. It's financial prioritization.
ISPs would dearly love to charge for their infrastructure twice - once to you, the end-user, and once to the content-providers. So Netflix must pay for the bits they send to the ISP, and you must pay to receive them. This causes several problems - it's a high barrier for new entrants, for a start.
We don't want "bandwidth for free". We want "the bandwidth we paid for".
> We don't want "bandwidth for free". We want "the bandwidth we paid for".
It's worth noting that this kind of scam can only happen when there's a legislated monopoly on services. In a market with competition any dominant ISP which tries to double dip will immediately be called out on it and undercut by competitors.
Looks like the down votes were headed just where you thought they'd go, until I interrupted that tread with n up vote!
What you described is very near to Sprints new, or latest version of Unlimited Data. Here is a quote:
" Sprint's so-called Unlimited Freedom plan puts no hard cap on data usage but throttles media streams to a bitrate that would effectively cap the video quality at 480p and music 500 Kbps
http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/08/26/sprint-unveils-new-unlimited-data-plan-actually-lets-stream-videos-hd-20-dollars-per-month/
Now, what I have, is an older Unlimited Everything Plan, which, Sprint notified me that ALL MY DATA will be at the highest rate, because, 1) customer loyalty, I've been with them over 15 years, and 2) they are honoring the terms of my Grandfathered plan, which equates to the Premium version of the new plans, which requires an extra $20 a month for highest data rates for all streaming.
So, I would say, watch for the others of the big 4 providers to come up with similar plans. Because right now, T-Mobil has an unlimited plan that's NOT really unlimited. Besides throttling, there is a hard cap, which after reached, I think they drop the unsuspecting customer to, 2g. I'm not sure, but I don't think streaming anything at 2g is going to be very enjoyable. But the article I link to explains it better.
People (customers) pay their provider for a connection to the internet. If their provider starts charging some of the sites that they're connecting to for the privilege of the customers connecting, then that's double dipping.
It's not much different to tourist bus operators demanding kickbacks for stopping at certain souveneri shops.
The problems started when content providers became ISPs too. It was never going to end well and is another area where separation of line side (ie, natural monopoly) and services (natural competition) would work wonders.
The USA has tackled this kind of thing before, one example being the breakup of the Boeing/United airlines comglomorate and another being broadcasters who sold radios locked to their stations.
"People who sneer about “flyover states” don’t get very far when the 'flyovers' don’t need to listen"
Yes, indeed, it was all those "flyover states" that elected Trump. Their opinions and votes DO count, no matter how much smarter all those "Lord Bong" types in Silicon Valley think they are. If you REALLY want to change the way the country is going, you need to engage in a dialog with others and not just talk to the like-minded and down to those who don't already agree with you.
Andrew, thanks for a terrific, well-balanced article.
If you REALLY want to change the way the country is going, you need to engage in a dialog with others and not just talk to the like-minded and down to those who don't already agree with you.
Well said, @ma1010.
My own take: we won't really know what a President Trump will do, or undo, until he takes office.
Here's the trap that the press is currently in, the problem isn't more people voting Trump (maybe a few, and maybe different ones) Trump didn't win, Clinton lost.
Trump/Pence got 60,800,000 ish votes in 2016 in a disposition that got enough states to win.
Romney/Ryan got 60,900,000 ish votes in 2012 in a disposition that led to not enough states.
On the other side,
Clinton the 2nd / Kaine got 61,700,000 ish votes in more populace regions and didn't have enough states to win.
Obama / Biden haf 65,900,000ish votes.
The problem is that the message didn't reach the people that voted Democrat before and didn't pick up enough disenchanted Republicans. So Trump lost 100,000ish votes on the last lot, Clinton lost 4 million votes.
Trump/Pence got 60,800,000 ish votes in 2016 in a disposition that got enough states to win.
You can't look at popular vote numbers in an Electoral College vote because you get different voting patterns in a popular vote. Had the election been a popular vote election you would have seen different numbers.
It's important to realize why the U.S., France, Ireland, and so many other countries use an electoral college vote and why it is superior to a popular vote:
1. A popular vote system is inherently VULNERABLE TO FRAUD! An electoral college vote limits fraud to one state so it does not overwhem the nation.
2. An electoral college vote insures that anyone who wins an overwhelming majority of the votes will win the election.
3. if #2 does not apply, an electoral college system insures that the winner will be whomever has the most GEOGRAPHICALLY DIVERSE support will win.
If you look at the electoral map for Trump/Clinton, you will see that #3 is in play here. Clinton won only the left and right coasts. Trump won the nation.
An electoral college voting system also amplifies the power of minorities. In a popular vote system minorities can be easily ignored.
The ultimate symbol of a popular vote system is a lynch mob.
The founding fathers were very concerned about the "tyranny of the majority", which is why they set up two houses in the legislature, one with proportional representation and one with equal representation. California has a much larger voice in the house than Wyoming, but they're equal in the senate - and bills must pass both on the way to becoming law. That's also why things like constitutional amendments require such a large supermajority, why the senate requires 60 votes to break a filibuster, and on and on.
If the US went to a national popular vote, candidates would only visit very populous areas. They'd advertise on nationwide TV instead of local stations. It would change campaigning in ways that may not be apparent, and may not be for the better.
Granted, the electoral college has some shortcomings. While candidates might recognize the concerns of a smaller state like Iowa, because it has become a swing state, other small states that are solidly blue or red will be ignored because gaining a few percentage points doesn't do anything. However, over the long term states can change as their demographics change. Also, states can choose to allocate their electoral votes proportionally or by congressional district. If a state that's solidly red or blue decides to do that, it can become important in a tight race if a few percentage points mean swinging one electoral college vote, or if a state has "swing districts".
Clinton's web site and often her speeches were full of policy wonk stuff that no-one wants to hear.
Trump said things like "I do military good".
Like everyone else I don't know what will happen, but I do know Hillary Clinton knows her stuff and Donald Trump appears to know very little about climate change/ISIS/Mideast/Heathcare/...
That's why one says "Believe me, I will destroy ISIS. I will tell you how when I win".
Time to find out really.
Err... "engage in a dialog with others and not just talk to the like-minded and down to those who don't already agree with you" -
... Okay, I can certainly see how you could characterise Clinton as falling into those traps. What I can't see is how you can characterise Trump as doing any better. The only significant difference is in which specific people they talk "to" and "down to", respectively.
When people want change, it is pretty hard to run as a consummate insider in the same party that has controlled the White House for eight years, even if that president has 58% job approval.
If Clinton had a little charisma, and actually had something to offer the angry white blue collar workers who see their career prospects getting worse every year, she would have beaten a buffoon like Trump easily. They knew Trump was telling them what they want to hear "we'll bring those jobs back from China and Mexico" and they know it isn't possible to actually do that. But a vote for Clinton would be voting for four more years of the same, and the same wasn't working for them. They were willing to take a chance on doing something different, because they didn't have much to lose.
This post has been deleted by its author
People want more control over their own photos, words and music when dealing with a giant content harvester like Facebook, not less.
This isn't a legislative or executive issue - this is a problem with Facebook's (et al) "Terms and Conditions."
The existing copyright laws *already* give you absolute full control over your own original works but in order to use most (if not all) of these sorts of services you are required to give up that control.
And given how popular Facebook is, people would seem to be generally ignorant of this or else just don't give a shit.
"The existing copyright laws *already* give you absolute full control over your own original works..."
But you can't enforce it. Try using the DMCA to takedown a photo. You'll quickly find out how the dice are loaded.
"given how popular Facebook is people would seem to be generally ignorant"
Keeping people ignorant of their property rights is critical. The empires are built on ignorance.
Getting people to campaign for their rights to be weakened is a bonus!
The problem (I observe this in my home nation as well - at a lesser extent) is that congress blocked ideas because of party politics - not only for Obama (as briefly mentioned in the article, when the author was not busy with name calling). In other countries the parliament can be blocked by another chamber or even a single person. The German president refused to sign some laws a few years back, he felt they were against the constitution (usually this is a formality). Since most democratic countries have some sort of checks and balances, giving one person or group a way of removing these is not without danger. It can and will be abused. On the other hand blocking something just because you can and the person / group proposing belongs to another party is also bad and against the intent of the constitution (whatever it is called). The art of finding compromises is really endangered. Balanced decisions are sacrificed for party politics - by all sides.
The article however is a bad piece of bad propaganda - or flamebait. Using "duh... cronies" several times is really not the hallmark of... journalism. It will mostly feed the trolls.
There is a Russian joke about a Blond driving:
Блондинка за рулём, это как обезяна с гранатой. Никогда не знаешь куда она ее бросит.
It applies with minimal modifications to the current situation:
Trump in the White House is like a monkey with a hand grenade. You have no clue where he will throw it.
We have no clue what his policy really will be. Like most populists he was elected on "I am against the establishment" (while being born with a silver spoon the size of a cadillac) and other empty talk. We have no clue what he will or will not do and who will be doing "deals" with him in the White House. I would definitely expect him to largely do the talk, but not walk the walk. Same as Berlusconi did for decades in Europe.
So frankly, Andrew's anti-Google glee is a bit premature. Google has enough money to buy the next president of USA the same way it "owned" this one.
Google has enough money to buy the next president of USA the same way it "owned" this one.
Too true, they're also expanding their bases with new HQ in London, and something Andrew might be interested in. Being a bit of an old campaigner at heart, I found this pretty nice looking job.
Google might have a lot of influence, but every once in a while a "Teddy Roosevelt" will go into office and carry his BIG STICK. I can see Trump doing that...
(but Trump would rather stick a carrot on the end and make a deal - a GOOD deal)
also privacy issues make strange bedfellows. I find myself actually AGREEING with the ACLU at times. I expect Trump to be more for individuals than mega-corporations, at least if his campaign speeches reflected his true passion. I think they did.
I can see Trump doing that...
If you mean that, like Teddy Roosevelt, Trump might split the Republican Party, I think you may well have a point.
As for the rest, we'll just have to wait and see. He ran extremely effective campaign but that has little to do with running the government. Appointments so far read like a three-way toss up between right-wingers, insiders and members of his family.
If you mean that, like Teddy Roosevelt, Trump might split the Republican Party, I think you may well have a point.
Well Hillary has already split the Democratic party. Remember the infighting between her and Obama when she was Sec. of State?
Pelosi is fighting to be House minority leader. Leading Dems have all admitted this election was a surprise because they misjudged the American people. The election results have painted the Dems as the party of the status-quo, especially when their outgoing President ran on the slogan of "Change" and just delivered more of the same.
"I would definitely expect him to largely do the talk, but not walk the walk" -- AC
Well, he was against political dynasties and "elites" and he's appointed three of his children and a son in law to his transition team as well as a slew of high level lobbyists.
So frankly, Andrew's anti-Google glee is a bit premature. Google has enough money to buy the next president of USA the same way it "owned" this one.
Also, despite Andrew's assertion, according to Opensecrets.org Alphabet were only the 10th biggest lobbiest this year, and 12th last year:
Compared to the Chamber of Commerce $79 million so far this year, they're hardly even trying.
"A more confident political left [...] has been MIA in recent years."
AWOL, more like. Unless the A in MIA is used in a very broad sense.
"Whether “Digital Millenials” can remember how to talk to the rest of the United States remains to be seen."
I seriously doubt it. Ironically, "social networks" seem to lower social skills. And interacting in a meaningful way* with people outside your regular peer group(s)** is a vital social skill.
* This would include old-school stuff like reasoning, objective facts, politeness...
** Which quite often is really just a bunch of people trapped in the same echo chamber, not people that actually know each other. (Not in the biblical sense, and not counting the odd exception from that.)
I believe Donald Trump will prove to be a great leader who will allow American innovation to thrive but not allow the titans of the industry to dominate the landscape. The Trump Administration will be advised by Peter Thiel and I believe this will prove to be a good thing for the industry. It is about time we move to Constitutional regular order and this is what I believe the Trump Administration will do. Before others offer their hyper-sensitive or cynical views of a Trump Administration, lets remember that Mr Trump did not take large sums of corporate donations, has eschewed lobbyists and plans to follow an agenda that will faithfully carry out the execution of the law.
Righto.
I won't ask how you claim to know precisely who Mr "what tax returns?" did or didn't receive money from. Or what agenda, specifically, he "plans" to follow. (I mean, lots of people think they know that, but since they don't all agree with one another, we can safely say that some of them are wrong.) Or on what basis you believe he has any regard for "Constitutional regular order".
You can believe all that, sure. But given the campaign the man ran, the appointments he's announced so far, and his utter disregard for those bits of the constitution (e.g. birthright citizenship) that don't suit his agenda, I believe considerably greater cynicism is more than justified.
It's very amusing watching leftists try to claim Trump is bad for not releasing his tax returns. No law requires him to, BTW. Just like no law requires Obama to release his college records, or many other pieces of his murky past. But you guys keep beating that dead horse if that's how you get your jollies.
The fact is, it's none of your stinking business how much tax Trump paid, unless he cheated. And if he did, rest assured the Obama-controlled and utterly partisan IRS would have exposed him, not to mention charged him with crimes. But they did not, because they and you have nothing.
It's very amusing watching leftists try to claim Trump is bad for not releasing his tax returns.
Would that it were true, Mr Redneck. But, alas no conspiracy theory here: it was Trump himself who reneged on his own promise to release his tax returns. Not that it really mattered: his egregious, if perfectly legal, avoidance just made him seem "cleverer" to his dumber than average base.
And not that it really matters either but Americans always seem to want change but never seem to get it: Dodd-Frank will get repealed and that the banks go back to betting with other people's money. What larks!
> "...it was Trump himself who reneged on his own promise to release his tax returns."
I hadn't realized that a politician's offhand promise to a TV interviewer more than a year ago constitutes a morally binding pact with the public at large.
This changes everything! Every single time one of them fails to keep even the slightest promise made to anyone, we can bust them! Oh wait, we do that already, and they keep doing it anyway. Oh well, back to bashing Trump exclusively...
It's about Morality not legality.
Being the President requires a certain morality and disposition.
His statements (lies at a level that beggar belief) this far indicate he doesn't have his heart in actually making America great again ("Do I have to go into work every day?").
Here's hoping he never gets the 3 O'clock phone call.
Income tax?, he paid what he was legally obliged to pay, not a cent more. Previous governments, including Obama and Clinton did nothing to make large businesses pay more. If you think Hillary would have made a better President, then you are either biased or a fool, she was arrogant, lied and was proven to be dishonest, hell she couldn't even thank the people who worked for her because she was throwing a tantrum because she lost. The left threw it away and now they are looking for someone to blame for their own stupidity, suck it up princess, by behaving like little spoilt children you make yourself a laughing stock.
"won't be appointing Carly Fiorina"
why not? the election is over now. time to get work done. Ted Cruz is being considered for a cabinet position, as one example. It might be fun, seeing Carly as FCC chair... or in charge of the patent office... or running something ELSE that she'd be really knowledgeable about.
Strap in and hang onto the safety bar, we're going for a ride! And it cost an 'E' ticket for THIS one! [ok who else is old enough to remember the 'E' ticket rides at Disneyland?]
It might be fun, seeing Carly as FCC chair... or in charge of the patent office... or running something ELSE that she'd be really knowledgeable about.
Yeah! Are there any federal enterprises that needs their employees to be made run down and demotivated and destroy innovation and value? Who has the popcorn!
It might be fun, seeing Carly as FCC chair...
This is the problem with the 'tear it up, burn it down, drain the swamp', populist charge for change; people believe that because it will be different it will be better, that disruption has benefit, or they simply don't care what happens so long as it is different, there is change.
Some even jump on the bandwagon of change because they think it will be funny to fuck up the system just for shits and giggles; often arguing it can't be any more fucked than it already is.
I understand the desire for revolution - I think we do need that (and not only in America) - but it's not just about change; it is what comes from that change. Change without purpose is not much more than riot and destruction.
You haven't been following the news where the local monopoly/duopoly kills these with a flood of lawsuits and city council bribes. Usually the BS revolves around access to poles and conduits used for household wire utilities. Suddenly they're all full, or they're dangerous, or they're fragile vital infrastructure needing absurd insurance coverage, or the city council should not use any resources to look at such matters at all. Being that grassroots efforts start at a local level, it's pocket change for telco to crush them.
This isn't a Silicon Valley thing. Just about every state has tried community or new private internet services.
well, if I had enough money I'd call the phone company and say "I have money, and I want XXX now how much to set me up with that?" if they said "no" I'd be like "ok, I'm willing to PAY SOMEONE to RUN WIRES TO MY HOUSE. Now, HOW MUCH?" After a few of THOSE, I'd eventually get in touch with someone who could help me work out the details.
NOW... if that process were made SIMPLER, maybe those lines being brought in for YOU could then provide competing service to all of the neighbors. A telco SHOULD want to JUMP at that possibility.
Unfortunately, city gummints "gum up the works" by requiring things like "you must provide equal service in a POOR neighborhood for every well-to-do neighborhood you do this for". Nevermind that poor neighborhoods generally can't AFFORD "that service". but that's how gummints do things. or you pay them off to shut the hell up, and get it done before someone notices...
NOW... if that process were made SIMPLER, maybe those lines being brought in for YOU could then provide competing service to all of the neighbors.
Congratulations for going off at a tangent, you dumb fuck. I'm glad to see you're happy with your vote and I wish it brings you everything you expected. Though I suspect you may be ever so slightly disappointed.
Now, back to the issue: there are many documented instances of incumbents telcos lobbying, generally successfully, against municipal fibre services. Nothing to do with universal access and all to do with restricting competition.
It seems clear that places with more democracy and more government produce a better system of living than those that don't.
One could compare Somalia with Finland but perhaps Finland with the USA would be more apt.
The USA is behind (way, way behind) Finland on almost (if not all) metrics of Quality of Life.
The USA has (say) more square feet per household but Finland has more people that actually have somewhere to live.
The USA has a higher mortality rate for births (mother and/or child) and poorer High School performance (and all the other school levels I imagine).
The gap between poor and rich is substantially larger in the USA (no this is not a good thing!). A larger middle-class is a good indicator of a stable society.
Much of the stuff that the USA does well (entrepreneurs for instance) seems to be that most of them are started by immigrants, something the USA wants less of these days.
Figures show that the USA working person has been getting poorer for some decades, hence a desire for change. The reason is more likely to be that the USA was very, very wealthy and has had problems maintaining that lead when the rest of the world is playing catch-up.
A more confident political left that believes in achieving lasting change through political persuasion, alliances, and building popular support has been MIA in recent years.
Andrew, being not from these parts, you can be excused for not properly understanding what has happened here in the last 8 years. But please understand, it wasn't America's left that convened the infamous "Restaurant meeting"1.
1 Oh, dear...you probably don't know what the "Restaurant meeting" was, either. You do have some catching up to do.
It was never a conspiracy, it is a plain, open, specific desire not to co-operate.
No other evidence is needed since Merrick Garland was offered for SCOTUS and refused even a hearing because of the GOP-controlled houses.
More evidence would be the dozens of attempts to overturn Obamacare by adding amendments to that end to any number of totally unrelated bills, causing the bill to ultimately fail.
Garland was not even considered left wing, he has the right credentials and would be a fair offering.
I can almost guarantee that the person put forward will be noticeably right-leaning, the house will allow them to be put forward and they will be accepted.
We have to hope and pray that Ginsberg survives at least 2 years, preferably four and that the SCOTUS is not made hard right for a generation.
But I'm told (by people who were there) [...]
Really? Told by whom? Barack Obama? Hillary? Herr Drumpf? Jeff Sessions? Some guy in West Penumbra, Montana? And where is "there"? At the restaurant where the "conspiracy" as you so dismissively call it, was hatched? In the Congressional Page's locker room? In NBC News's London office? In West Penumbra, Montana?
I was (and still am, unfortunately) here, in a Central Midwestern state. So I am "there". I know about the Restaurant Meeting. You don't. (You still have a chance to read up on it, but it appears you're not interested in learning about something that goes counter to you predefined notions. You'd make a perfect Trump voter.)
Like the man said, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. And you can stop me in believing in conspiracies, but you cannot stop me from believing in facts.
You can do some of your research instead of flapping about and resorting to insults.
Obama was ineffective, and achieved little despite a two year window he had Congress. After that it was mostly gestures. The level of support for Sanders indicates a desire amongst Democrats for much more radical demands.
But feel free to carry on insulting and changing the subject though - it seems that's what you prefer to do.
You paint a picture (pretty bleak) of Google that many readers here will find rather alien.
Google manipulating the US Government? In the words of one V. Meldrew, "I don't believe it!".
So lets phrase it a little differently.
1) Who has more influence in DC? Apple or Google?
2) Who is the more evil? i.e. a bigger threat to our normal lives? Does Apple have its own A.I.?
{After all Apple is often portraied as the evil empire. Has Google ursurped them?}
Properly considered answers to these questions would be interesting.
I'm posting AC because I refuse to give {them} even more data on my than they already have.
I believe that the Koch Brothers have more influence than Apple and Google combined. And, once they realised they couldn't control Trump, they directed their not inconsiderable funding at Congress. Scrapping the EPA's good for business as I'm sure Volkswagen among others would agree.
Yes, I've heard this idea too Charlie, it's popular with conspiracy theorists.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/koch-brothers-campaign-struggles-230325
"On a drizzly Monday morning in mid-September, about 200 staffers from the Koch brothers’ conservative advocacy network were summoned to the fifth floor auditorium of the Charles Koch Institute’s Arlington, Virginia, headquarters, and presented with some bleak news: their efforts to reshape American politics were faltering and were being scaled back amid concerns about lower-than-projected fundraising.
In recent years, the deep-pocketed network’s forays into federal elections and policy fights had resulted in “very little success,” the managers were told by top Koch official Mark Holden, according to three people familiar with the meeting."
I heard someone describe it in an interesting way recently:
"Apple rips you off upfront and in plain sight, by selling you overpriced hardware. Google rips you off on your personal data."
As to your 1): I'm not sure how much more evidence you need of Google's influence on Government - it is extensive and very well documented.
... have a seat in Trumps transition team.
oshua Wright has been put in charge of transition efforts at the influential Federal Trade Commission after pulling off the rare revolving-door quadruple-play, moving from Google-supported academic work to government – as an FTC commissioner – back to the Google gravy train and now back to the government.
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/google-gets-a-seat-on-the-trump-transition-team/
“The lame-duck president can hardly complain. If you rule by executive fiat, then you should not be surprised if the next executive undoes your fiats,” Thiessen wrote, barely containing his glee.
Indeed; the problem with Executive Orders and the like is that they can be undone with a change of administration. But what was Obama meant to do if he couldn't get anything done other than doing it that way?
He could have done more to convince Republicans but that wasn't practical; it was always going to be 'you repeal Obamacare, climb down on gun control, and we may consider it'. I think anyone saying he could otherwise have done more through being flexible is not acknowledging Republican resistance and their inflexibility. Republicans were determined to shut Obama down, limit what he could achieve. The glee now shows they would never have entertained what Obama wanted in the first place.
He really had no choice, do it and hope it would stick, hope the next administration would fare better and be able to cement it as law rather leave it as EO, forego important achievements to get less important things through, or do nothing.
He did what he could.
Talk about setting your expectations low, Jason:
"He could have done more to convince Republicans but that wasn't practical"
We know the Republicans are deeply split. A politician who can't exploit the opposition's splits is letting his side (his voters) down. Maybe doing politics interrupted Obama's golf sessions. Aw.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
